Not Your Demographic

Assertions so counter intuitive and nonsensical - they must be true!

Cogent insights by Benjamin Scherrey

Prev Next

How to Address Wuhan-Virus as a Governor

Friend of mine asked what I would do if I was in charge of Colorado regarding policies towards management of the Wuhan-virus pandemic. Here's my response:

My recommendation for policy regarding this virus is to act locally based on the behavior of the virus. I would be performing 1000 random anti-body tests every 3 days to track its spread.

I'd track average daily deaths. Above 3 per million residents then you keep a quarantine for all identified pockets - Q status. So NYC is quarantined but upper state NY is not. Once you're below 3 per million then reopen with strict guidelines as to crowd sizes, masks, work-from-home when possible, etc - W status. Once you're below 1.2 per million then people should follow social distancing and hygiene rules but only those with compromised immune systems need to take real extra precautions - O status. Once you're below 3 per 10 million then you declare victory - V status.

So this means Arkansas is pretty much all clear for now: V.

Colorado is right at the point where several cities get W status, as is Alabama, California, and Florida. The rest of their respective states would be O.

Texas is well within O status. They might have a couple of cities that are W.

Illinois and Michigan have Q status levels and would need to segment their population centers as appropriate.

Strict guidelines for virus morbidity determination. The deceased must either test positive for Wuhan-virus or show clear signs in lungs from autopsy AND the cause of death must primarily be from the direct results of the virus. Gun shot wounds for people who test positive are NOT valid cases (yes these have actually been reported).

Hospitals report by 7p each evening. Every county would get updates every 48 hours about their status, infection rates (from random testing), and Rt rating (to show the decline/rise in rates) which would then allow them to act on any change of status the next day.

That's basically it. States and localities will have serious incentives to keep their numbers in check so they don't go over the next line and have to pull back towards quarantine.

I'd pay close attention to the anti-body detection rates and probably adjust policies based on this.

The point is now there are clear objective meaningful metrics that people can see and trust so there's a clear end in sight. They're not dependent on elite bureaucrats who have no skin in the game.

Original Post:

Prev Next